Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
mentioned, while senators graham, ayotte and mccain are focused on what susan rice, ambassador rice said on the sunday talk shows, they are not asking any questions at all about the real questions about security there at the consulate in benghazi. that's where their interest and focus and ire should be pointed. not at a u.n. ambassador who went on the sunday talk shows as a spokesperson for the administration giving, imparting the information she was given by the intelligence community. >> and susan, for those just joining us. this happened moments ago in the last hour. i want to remind everyone what the three senators had to say. take a look. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before that the 16 september explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice, i think, does not do justice to the reality at the time. >> clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people was wrong, in fact, ambassador rice said today abs
as the white house had hoped. senators mccain, ayotte and graham say they have more questions than they had before rice's comments about benghazi. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get it. >> if you don't know what happened just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give bad information. >> that's troubling to me as well, why she wouldn't have asked, i'm the person that doesn't know anything about this, i'm going on every single show. >> joining me now for our daily fix, chris cizilla, msnbc contributor managing editor of post politics.com and our own nbc capitol hill correspondent kelly o'donnell. well, this was pretty tense. chris, first to you. you've seen a lot of confirmation battles. this really did seem like an escalation, a warning shot. >> maybe they come out of this and say, look, we still kind of disagree with the way this played out but the explanations that ambassador rice gave us helped us understand. instead, what we got coming out of it was, as you p
not to believe that statement on her part? >> well, one of the things that senator graham said today was that he wants more of the investigation -- the information to come out. the fbi agents who had interviewed survivors of the attack. and he wants to know more information before he says he would be willing to elevate somebody who was involved in any part of this controversy. i do think that susan rice is not really the one that i am personally most concerned about. just as a. >> reporter: trying to find out the truth. the state department itself and susan rice is part of it but not really involved in deciding why they didn't get adequate security who did what in terms of trying to help the people who were pinned down. that seems to be more of a c.i.a. question. those are the people i really want to find out more about. >> eliot: i think that's exactly right. there are a myriad of legitimate questions that should be asked about the information through the decision making but it seems to me susan rice is the least infor
with ayotte and graham and mccain coming out to talk about the fact that they're meeting with ambassador rice leaves them scratching their heads and with more questions? of course people want more answers to what happened in benghazi, but it's not up to ambassador rice. she's not fronting the investigation. >> no, but she's been part of that team that went on those sunday shows to talk act those issues to say it was a video that caused this. whether it was the talking points or the intelligence, she's the one in front of the tv cameras that said this. this is an audition to be the country's top diplomat. she's going into a hostile group, we would want her to have a better relationship after, not worse. she had three senators she knew she wasn't in a great relationship with. they seemed to be more open to her over the weekend. she went into a meeting and made it worse. regardless of what you think about susan rice -- >> were they really going to listen to her and come out and be, like, oh, god, we love susan rice now? i don't think that was ever going to be the backside of that meeting. >> no.
graham. you are on the record saying you will not support her if she is nominated for secretary of state. but not just because of libya. what is the problem. >> let me clarify that. my first thought is what if susan rice was thrown under the bus and they all knew she didn't have the information from the cia. then i thought you would have to feel sorry for her. since yesterday talking to some of those to whom she talked i'm convinced in my mind that she is part of the coverup, she knew all the time the cia information that was given to her. but your point is very good. i could not support her in the secretary of state if she is nominated. bill: give me a reason why. >> she is on the wrong side of the membership of the u.n. palestinian authority. she is on the opposite side of where i am. she has kept on funding you necessary cowhich is in violation of instructions given to her through law. she is on the opposite side of every issue that i am. for that reason i would have opposed her anyway. bill: it appears to me and many others when we listen to folks like yourself talk that this issue i
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)